Journal of Dairy Research Individual dairy cow management:
cambridge.org/dar
Invited Review
Cite this article: Maltz E (2020). Individual
dairy cow management: achievements,
obstacles and prospects. Journal of Dairy
Research 87, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022029920000382
Received: 25 September 2019
Revised: 1 April 2020
Accepted: 4 April 2020
Keywords:
PLF; productivity; sensor technologies; welfare
Author for correspondence:
Ephraim Maltz, Email: emaltz@volcani.agri.
gov.il
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by
Cambridge University Press on behalf of
Hannah Dairy Research Foundation.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
achievements, obstacles and prospects
Ephraim Maltz
A.R.O. The Volcani Center, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bet-Dagan, Israel
Abstract
This review deals with the prospects and achievements of individual dairy cow management
(IDCM) and the obstacles and difficulties encountered in attempts to successfully apply
IDCM into routine dairy management. All aspects of dairy farm management, health, repro-
duction, nutrition and welfare are discussed in relation to IDCM. In addition, new IDCM
R&D goals in these management fields are suggested, with practical steps to achieve them.
The development of management technologies is spurred by the availability of off-the-shelf
sensors and expanded recording capacity, data storage, and computing capabilities, as well
as by demands for sustainable dairy production and improved animal wellbeing at a time
of increasing herd size and milk production per cow. Management technologies are sought
that would enable the full expression of genetic and physiological potential of each cow in
the herd, to achieve the dairy operation’s economic goals whilst optimizing the animal’s well-
being. Results and conclusions from the literature, as well as practical experience supported by
published and unpublished data are analyzed and discussed. The object of these efforts is to
identify knowledge and management routine gaps in the practical dairy operation, in order to
point out directions and improvements for successful implementation of IDCM in the dairy
cows’ health, reproduction, nutrition and wellbeing.
In this review, the term individual dairy cow management (IDCM) will be used rather than
precision dairy farming (PDF). The term ‘precision’ seems to be limiting, (like precision spray-
ing or precision irrigation) while ‘individual management’ is more associated with ‘paying
attention’, something that will appeal to informed and increasingly welfare-conscious consu-
mers. Arguably, therefore, IDCM is technically and commercially preferable to PDF.
Tracing, storing and recording information on each individual cow in herds that are grow-
ing all the time is no longer manageable by many dairy farmers. Sensing technologies were
developed to provide animal-centric information to serve as the farmer’s ‘eyes and ears’, driven
by advanced technologies and powerful computers that provide massive data storage, modeling
and computing capabilities. The sensors and technological advances evolved into indispens-
able individual management aids, which in turn led to IDCM. IDCM can be defined as: enab-
ling the individual cow to reach its full genetic potential in accordance with the farm’s economic
goals, while maintaining or improving the cow’s health and wellbeing. During the last 50 years,
sensing has evolved from manually recording individual cow milk production using the ‘jar’
milk meter (scaled glass jar in which the milk was collected and released to the milk pipe
after volume recording) to electronic individual identification (ID) and electronic milk meters
with automatic computer recording. Numerous off-the-shelf sensors are now available for
recording performance, health, reproduction and wellbeing under practical commercial condi-
tions. Even more systems are available for basic research and in various stages of R&D (see
below, and Neethirajan, 2017). Included in this are sensors that are affixed to the cow in
some manner, are introduced into her body internally, or are present in the cow’s environ-
ment. These sensors provide information on individual cows, ranging from milk yield (MY)
and composition and body weight (BW), through estrus detection to rumination time,
rumen pH, body temperature, heart rate, behavior, concentrates rationing and more. This
multitude of sensors does not include robotics, individual milking frequency nor single milk-
ing cup attachment and detachment. The high demand for such off-the-shelf sensors is
reflected in the fact that they are available from a variety of manufacturers.
We cannot ignore the gap between the available technologies on the one hand and the dis-
appointing application of IDCM on the other. One of the pioneers of precision livestock farm-
ing (PLF), the late Christopher M. Wathes, published an article in 2005 (Wathes et al., 2005) in
which he concluded that PLF (including dairy IDCM) ‘…is an embryonic technology with great
potential…’, and that in order to materialize it ‘…we foresee four significant hurdles to be over-
come….’: These were (and are) technological (precision, cost and ability to handle physio-
logical data and models), specific livestock applications (clear, and based upon sound
biological principles), marketing on a commercial scale (to win the confidence of farmers)
and bioethics (public concern about using instruments on animals). In addition, following
 146
a survey of farmers, Bewley and Russell (2010) characterized sev-
eral obstacles stymieing the adoption and use of IDCM indicating
that though a great deal had been done to overcome the hurdles
described by Wathes et al. (2005) there is still a long way to go.
From farmers that were either aware or familiar with technologies
that are available, the most common problems cited were: ‘imma-
ture introduction’ and user ‘unfriendliness’, even when the cost to
expected benefit was considered reasonable. Now, 13 years after
Wathes original publication, and 10 years after the survey, what
does the dairy farmer do with all this technology? Unfortunately,
the gap between the potential benefits and the actual exploitation
of these technologies is still rather large.
IDCM technology can be divided into two categories: time
sensitive and time tolerant. Time sensitive refers to a sensor
that requires an immediate response, e.g. the sensor flags estrus
in a particular cow. A time tolerant sensor is one that produces
data for which the response can wait, without affecting the result.
The same sensors can often be used for both categories, although
a different approach by the manufacturer and the farmer is neces-
sary. Time sensitive technology is used primarily to provide infor-
mation about health/illness and reproduction. In the time tolerant
category are included, among others, technologies for individual
feeding and animal wellbeing. The initial approach in R&D of
sensors in the dairy industry was aiming to a single target, i.e. a
sensor was developed to address a specific need. For example, a
sensor to detect electrical conductivity in milk was developed,
for early detection of udder illnesses, particularly mastitis.
Similarly, activity sensors were developed for estrus detection.
However, it was recognized quite soon that applying several sen-
sors to a single target is far more effective. This requires an adjust-
able approach to the IDCM process, which encompasses the
following elements:
• Sensors that can provide detailed on-line data, that are automat-
ically recorded and stored, about the physiological and behav-
ioral status of an individual cow in a herd, regardless of the
herd’s size.
• Labeling and interpretation of these data that can be translated
into meaningful information about physiological processes.
• Physiological modeling that supports management decision-
making at the level of the individual cow, with the option of
providing automatic decisions according to pre-defined man-
agement strategy.
• Automatic implementation of decisions made, with the option
of manual implementation.
When multiple sensors are used for a certain purpose, the data
generated by each sensor has to go through the abovementioned
process for the purpose for which it is gathering data. For
example, milk yield (MY), which is used in both detection of mas-
titis and estrus, requires different labeling and physiological mod-
eling for each of the goals. Each of these steps contains potential
hurdles that challenge promising technologies. IDCM can and is
applied to all aspects of dairy management: nutrition, reproduc-
tion, health and animal wellbeing. For each of these this review
will examine the challenges, the advances and the bottlenecks,
and then go on to identify future needs and possibilities.
Finally, new R&D directions will be suggested and highlighted
for each of these management aspects.
The review will deliberately not consider all, or even most, of
the sensors and technologies available and under R&D for
IDCM. Rather, it will focus on specific, characteristic examples.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
Ephraim Maltz
A significant proportion of the studies, practical results and exam-
ples as well as sensors, hardware and software in this review are
from Israeli research at the Volcani Center and in commercial
dairy farms or with Israeli manufacturers. Nevertheless, the ana-
lysis and conclusions are of a general nature and characterize the
achievements, obstacles and prospects of IDCM all over the world.
The first part of the review will deal with two examples of sensors,
one successfully applied (activity for estrus detection) and one
with difficulties in application (body weight (BW) for health,
reproduction and nutrition management).The second part will
include detailed analysis and discussion of achievements and set
backs of IDCM technologies regarding health, reproduction,
nutrition and cow wellbeing, in order to identify knowledge and
practical gaps that hold back the exploitation of IDCM. This
will be done using results obtained and published in these fields
in literature as well as our own unpublished data. Some commer-
cially sensors will be identified by name and manufacturer for
clarity, but this is in no way made as a recommendation or
endorsement of that product.
Successes and difficulties: estrus detection and body
weight measurement
In practice, the goal of IDCM is to execute in real time a rational
management decision for each individual cow that will have a pre-
dictable outcome. For example, when an estrus detection system
indicates estrus, the rational decision is to inseminate the cow;
the predicted outcome is that the cow will conceive. This example
represents the successful application of a time-dependent technol-
ogy, based on continuous monitoring of cow activity utilizing
hardware and software.
The hardware is in the form of a sensor tag affixed to each cow.
The sensors monitor the number of steps taken by the cow (SAE
Afikim, Israel) or the cow’s head movements (SCR Netanya,
Israel). The data generated is analyzed using software with an
algorithm that compares current to historical activity. In Israel
it was adopted by most dairy farms, and has since spread to
dairy farms throughout the world including sensors such as
those manufactured by IceRobotics (UK) DeLaval (Sweden),
BouMatic (USA) and GEA (Germany). A number of factors con-
tributed to the rapid success of these IDCM technologies. First
and foremost, they are very user-friendly. The system generates
a list of cows whose activity during a specific time period was sig-
nificantly higher than their average values during the same period
in several previous days. This is the basic information that the
farmer would need to make the decision to have the cow insemi-
nated. Other parameters, like the amount of time that elapsed
after the cow calves, and MY for that time period, could be
taken into account as well. The farmer then enters each ‘flagged’
cow’s number into the ‘separate cow’ management program, and
arranges for insemination. After the next milking, the cows
selected will be separated and wait in the separation yard for
insemination. In some cases, the entire decision-making process
can be done automatically, by setting the thresholds in advance
in the management software. In other words, the system doesn’t
require the farmer to do any data analysis in making the decision
to inseminate the cow. In most of the cases, the action will yield
the predicted result: satisfactory conception. The method frees
him from conducting visual inspection and manually recording
standing heat cows.
An additional factor that contributed to the widespread adop-
tion of this technology is the fact that it is maintenance free, and
 Journal of Dairy Research
doesn’t require any calibration. The manufacturers achieved this
objective by thoroughly testing and re-testing the product, first
in laboratories and then in the field, before marketing it.
By contrast, the following example demonstrates the hurdles
and barriers that Wathes et al. (2005) and Bewley and Russell
(2010) spoke about. In the early 1980s, we developed a sensor,
a walk through scale, that weighs every cow in the herd after milk-
ing. The method was developed for research purposes, to reduce
the time and labor entailed in weighing cows manually. Once we
succeeded (Peiper et al., 1993), the potential of this method as a
management tool was recognized and adopted by scientists and
farmers. Indeed, several papers were published indicating the sig-
nificance and usefulness of individual body weight (BW) regard-
ing production (Maltz et al., 1992a, 1992b), nutrition (Maltz et al.,
1992a, 2013), reproduction (Maltz et al., 1997; Van Straten et al.,
2009a, 2009b), health (Maltz, 1997; Maltz et al., 1997; Østergaard
and Grohn, 1999) and individual food intake modeling
(Halachmi et al., 1997, 2004; NRC, 2001; De Vries et al., 2013).
Nonetheless, the method is not widely used in managerial
IDCM. The system includes hardware and software, generating
a daily or weekly record of the BW of every cow in the herd.
Each component of the system contains pitfalls that prevents its
exploitation despite its potential benefits in IDCM.
The hardware consists of a weighing plate connected to a load
cell or several load cells and an ID system, which is placed on the
path the cows take out of the milking parlor. To obtain sufficient
data from the load cells, a single cow must linger on the weighing
plate without hampering the regular flow of cows leaving the
milking parlor. Any obstruction in cow traffic that impedes cow
movement out of the milking parlor makes the weighing system
unusable in commercial dairy farms. Furthermore, the weighing
plate is exposed to manure accumulation, which causes erosion,
and affects the accuracy and thus the reliability of the data gener-
ated by the load cell. As a result, continuous maintenance and
calibration are required, which might ruin the potential advan-
tages of using this sensor.
The software has several phases. The first is to obtain a weight
from the load cells, after identifying that a single cow is on the
weighing plate. Data logic editing is performed to filter out erro-
neous data generated by the load cells. A reliable weight is then
calculated after that particular milking, which is usually the aver-
age of all load cell samples that qualify for ‘cow lingering alone
with all four legs on the weighing plate’ (Peiper et al., 1993).
Finally, the daily or weekly weight to be used for individual man-
agement is produced. The last phase requires special attention,
because of the possibility of missing data. Naturally, not all the
cows can be weighed after every milking. In addition, weight fluc-
tuations during the day may reach up to 10% of the cow’s weight
(Peiper et al., 1993). Therefore, a proper ‘missing data’ strategy
should be included in the software for the last stage, providing
an indication of the reliability of the BW presented. Finally, the
way in which the information is presented to the farmer or
used for other calculations can be problematic, since the results
are purpose dependent. In the literature, BW changes occur not
only throughout the day (Peiper et al., 1993), but also diurnally
(Maltz et al., 1992a, 1997). Therefore, special attention is required
when associating BW changes with health problems, and in mak-
ing feeding and reproduction decisions. For time dependent deci-
sion making, health for example, it may be enough to present a
list of cows whose BW is exceptionally lower in comparison to
their normal weight, with a proper indication as for the time win-
dow and the reliability of the BW presented. For time tolerate
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
147
decisions some sort of data smoothing has to be used, even for
a cow that is weighed after every milking. In addition, BW is really
only useful in management decision-making when it is one of an
array of indices provided by a variety of sensors like milk yield,
milk composition, activity, etc. (Maltz et al., 1997, 2013).
None of the sensor manufacturers currently provide any man-
agement decision-making, automatic or manual, or any other
information that includes BW data, nor do they provide possible
integration of BW data into the data from other sensors that they
market. The most that is achieved is presenting a visual indication
of the cow’s BW changes during the lactation cycle, which may
assist the farmer in long term nutritional decisions. As will be
described below, BW changes, together with other individual vari-
ables, can indicate health problems, concentrates supplementa-
tion, suitable insemination timing, dry matter intake (DMI),
and body condition (BC) modeling.
In order to expand use of this sensor in the dairy farm and
contribute to IDCM in conventional dairy farms, the following
points have to be addressed:
Walk through scale: location, cow flow, and infrastructure
In order to allow a fluent cow traffic from the milking parlor with
minimized cow standing time and avoiding pushing through the
weighing system, there are several steps that should be taken into
consideration when installing a walk through or stationary weigh-
ing system. The weighing plate should be located as far as possible
from the outlet of the milking parlor, especially if the parlor is
equipped with a quick release system. Slowing down steps
(Peiper et al., 1993) or a movable separation device situated before
the cow steps onto the weighing plate will help to prevent cows
crowding onto the scale. The slowing down step should be of
the same height as the weighing plate. In the case of parlors
from which cows are released in a row, separation gates over
the weighing plate can be useful. If installed, they should be posi-
tioned on both ends of the plate, closing and opening at the same
time. The weighing plate should be installed on the path on a con-
crete surface, with a gutter around it, to enable flushing the
manure that can accumulate on or underneath the plate.
Walk through scale: hardware improvements and calibration
A visual display over the weighing system, while the cow’s ID and
weight is recorded, is very important for continuous tracking of
the reliability of the weighing process. The display should be big
enough to allow data visibility from a distance, so that the
cows’ motion is not obstructed by the presence of the observer.
Manufacturers should provide an easy to use calibration process,
either as a built-in feature or as a service. In addition, an alarm
should be installed to indicate malfunctioning. For example, grad-
ual but continuous BW decrease of most of the cows using the
device usually indicates a load cell malfunction, or manure accu-
mulation under the weighing plate, whilst exceptional numbers of
missing data might indicate either a load cell or ID system
malfunction.
Walk through scale: software and operation routine
The value of BW that is used to detect health problems may be a
single daily weight that drops significantly below a certain thresh-
old of historical weight (Maltz et al., 1997). Other benefits can be
derived from several days of a running average that indicates the
 148
cow’s current energy balance. Changes in the BW slope can be
used to time insemination (Maltz, 2010). Several weeks of slope
change can indicate that the cow is reaching a satisfactory body
condition toward dry off in comparison to its post-calving BW
and body condition score.
Sensors for health
As a rule, sensors for detecting health problems are time sensitive.
The linkage between measurable physical and behavioral variables
accompanying dairy cow ailments, and advanced technology and
computing power raised hopes for early detection of health pro-
blems. This is based on the conviction (usually well justified)
that ‘machines’ are sensitive and accurate enough to identify the
physical and/or behavioral variables early enough to treat the
cow before the severe outbreak of disease and the economic and
welfare damage that it causes. Several steps are necessary to do so:
• identify and delineate a physiological or behavioral characteris-
tic related to a specific disease
• find or develop a technology that measures and quantifies it
• connect this to an ID system
• connect both to a computer
• position both in a location that all cows pass, e.g. a milking par-
lor, feeding device, etc.
The milk conductivity meter was developed based on the physio-
logical phenomenon that udder health problems are usually
accompanied by the penetration of extracellular electrolytes into
the milk, changing its electrical conductivity. Electrical conductiv-
ity can be measured in the milk outflow when milking the cow.
Another hypothetical example: ketosis is accompanied with pres-
ence of acetone exhaled through the lungs. An electronic ‘sniffer’
(Neethirajan, 2017) sensitive to acetone, in the milking parlor or
located in a computer-controlled concentrates self-feeder (see
below) may indicate ketosis in cows that exhale acetone. Health
problems for which individual early detection sensors were devel-
oped, some of which are common practice, will be analyzed to
evaluate their practical performance and possible improvements.
Udder health
The best known sensor that was developed to identify a specific
health problem is probably the milk conductivity sensor, which
is incorporated into the milking machine of many manufacturers,
and which was specifically developed for early detection of mas-
titis. Despite the high hopes, the outcome did not stand up to
expectations. The main problem of this sensor is that it measures
conductivity of all of the milk that a cow produces, rather than the
milk produced by a single quarter, which reduces its effectiveness.
This is solved in robotic milking systems, with single cup attach-
ment and detachment, which can measure changes in milk con-
ductivity in each quarter. In any case, the hope that this sensor
would enable the detection of subclinical mastitis, even when
milk decline was added as an indication, did not fulfill expecta-
tions (Shoshani and Berman, 1992), despite the fact that it is a
built-in feature in the milking cluster, and therefore widely
used. Furthermore, the farmer is often reluctant to apply treat-
ment, which is usually antibiotics, merely on the basis of suspi-
cion, because of the substantial loss of milk that has to be
thrown away following treatment.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
Ephraim Maltz
A significant improvement in udder health is achieved by
robot milking, which puts an end to empty milking by using sin-
gle cluster attachment and detachment thus reducing machine
milking pressure time on fore quarters that produce less milk
than hind quarters. However, there is even a greater contribution
to udder health that is offered by this technology that is not yet
pursued. This is milking by milking cups customized to teat
size and shape. Glands with acute teat-end lesions have higher
rates of infection (Sieber and Farnsworth, 1981), and such lesions
are usually the result of milking. Milking cannot be avoided but a
better way to imitate the calf’s suckling can be offered by using a
milking cup that fits each teat. Today, all teats are milked by the
same equipment and routine, despite the fact that the teats differ
from one another even on the same udder. In a preliminary study,
it was demonstrated that teats of different lengths and hyperker-
atoses respond differently to the same milking conditions (Davis
et al., 2002). If the machine picks up a single cup to be attached to
a single teat like in the VMS system (DeLaval, Sweden), then
potentially it is capable of selecting the one predesigned cup
from an array of milking cups that suits this particular teat. The
cup would be identified when the cow enters the milking stall
by pre-programing. Such an innovation requires research regard-
ing milking cup design, but is certainly within the realm of
possibility.
Lameness detection
Dedicated sensors were also developed for lameness detection.
One that is based on physical variables and gait movements
detected lameness and even the limb that causes it
(Rajkondawar et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2009). Another lameness
detection sensor based on the posture and back curvature of walk-
ing cows (Van Hertem et al., 2016, 2018) indicated lameness
before its visual appearance. Both products were put on the mar-
ket, but did not meet expectations and are not yet widely used.
Studies were also performed on early detection of lameness by
measuring walking limb pressure on a pressure mattress (Van
De Gucht et al., 2017), but that concept did not reach the stage
of practical application. The reason for suboptimal use of the
early detection sensors for lameness is the fact that there are
many hoof and leg health reasons for lameness. So, when the sen-
sor indicates lameness before visual occurrence, and even the limb
that causes it (Liu et al., 2009) it does not indicate the cause. At
that stage, the vet, even when lifting the suspected limb and
observing it, can’t find the reason for the lameness and apply
treatment. Moreover, sometimes an indication of early lameness
never develops to the pathological stage because of spontaneous
recovery. Nonetheless, when several sensors are used for the
same target, indications of the real hoof and leg problem are
improved (Liu et al., 2009).
Post-calving diseases
One case in which the absence of specific diagnosis does not ruin
the prospects for an early detection system is by applying it during
the period that the dairy cow is most susceptible to health pro-
blems. Such a period is immediately after calving. Usually,
when a cow is presented to the vet after calving, even without a
specific diagnosis, the vet can identify which of the post-calving
health problems is to be treated. Recent studies (Steensels et al.,
2017a, 2017b) indicated that by analyzing continuously generated
data from several performance and behavioral sensors after
 Journal of Dairy Research
calving, post-calving health problems may be detected before
severe damage is caused. This is the case especially when the
farmer and the vet know the normal post-calving changes in per-
formance and behavior (Steensels et al., 2012). Novel sensors like
Afilab (Arazi et al., 2008), a milk composition analyzer developed
jointly by The Volcani Center (ARO, Israel) and SAE Afikim
(Kibbutz Afikim, Israel), provide a significant contribution to
post-calving diagnosis, particularly in detecting ketosis (Arazi
et al., 2008; Schcolnik and Maltz, 2013). This capability is in add-
ition to its outstanding contribution to precision feeding (see
below).
Possible directions for improvement
The main reason that milk conductivity and lameness detection
systems that accurately provide the parameter for which they
were developed, i.e. an increase in milk conductivity and early
detection of lameness, but still fail to play the prevention role
for which they were developed, is that they are not specific. The
specific diagnosis is usually done by the vet when the symptoms
are clear: a sharp drop in milk production or visible lameness.
Unfortunately, this happens after the damage, both financial
and to the cow’s wellbeing, was already done. Does this mean
that we have to give up the hope of early detection?
Fortunately, no. Two developments have the potential to indicate
specific health problems early. The first one is to incorporate as
many sensors as possible into one indication system, that mini-
mizes the false positive indications of symptoms. Thus, only
those cows that are really on the verge of health problems are pre-
sented to the vet. The attitude of a vet to a case of a cow presented
to him because ‘something might be wrong with her’ will be dif-
ferent when he knows that several different sources indicate that
something is wrong with her, and not just the data from one sen-
sor that might be a false positive. For example, a gradual but con-
tinuous decline in MY and BW accompanied by behavioral
changes like the number or duration of visits to feeding trough
or self-feeders; an increase in body temperature, even without
an increase in milk conductivity, are strong enough indications
of a developing health problem to be taken seriously by the vet,
even without a specific diagnosis. This approach was tested for
lameness detection (Van Hertem et al., 2016) and post-calving
health problems (Steensels et al., 2017a, 2017b see below). It
was found that it minimized false positives and could be effective
for health management. Unfortunately, integrating the data for
useful information is still in the hands of the farmer.
Manufacturers should do this with their own sensors until the
day when, hopefully, they will start cooperating with one another
to connect sensors for an IDCM purpose.
The second possibility is the development of specific biosen-
sors. As described by Neethirajan et al. (2017) and Meshram
et al. (2018), ‘The potential for biosensor technology is enormous
and is likely to revolutionize analysis and control of biological sys-
tems.’ It is only a question of time before biosensors for specific
diagnoses will be incorporated into milk meters adjusted to take
minute samples from the milk flow to detect specific health
problems.
Reproduction
A delay in getting a cow pregnant is very costly. As a result, this
issue attracted scientists, extension experts and farmers interested
in improving reproduction management. The reproductive
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
149
process goes through several physiological and management
stages: estrus detection, insemination and conception and finally
pregnancy and calving. Each of these stages carries potential
risks that might disrupt the whole process.
Estrus detection
As described above, estrus detection is a good example of the suc-
cessful application of an IDCM technology, and one that is con-
stantly improving. The history of estrus detection by means other
than visual observation of ‘standing heat’ goes from paint marks
on the back of the cow ready for insemination (Foote, 1975),
through intravaginal and milk temperature sensors (Fordham
et al., 1988) to implanted tissue conductivity electrodes (Lehrer
et al., 1992). The system that has prevailed is the one that takes
advantage of behavioral changes of the cow during the reproduc-
tion cycle. Restlessness of a cow during the estrus part of the cycle
is expressed by change in activity, that can be measured by a var-
iety of commercial off-the-shelf sensors (Mayo et al., 2019).
Reduced food consumption followed by reduced measurable
rumination (see below) may also contribute to detection, espe-
cially in cases of ‘silent estrus’ (Bar, 2010; Bar and Solomon,
2010; Reith and Hoy, 2012). These estrus detection systems are
so successful, that they are now used in farms all over the
world. However, the aim of estrus detection is to get a cow preg-
nant, but the most accurate estrus detection system does not
secure conception, even when the insemination time was optimal.
Insemination and conception
The cow has to be inseminated when she is still receptive, but the
farmer gets the information from the sensor post factum, when it
is downloaded from the activity tag, usually at milking time.
Fortunately, changes in behavior occur ahead of the optimal
time for the cow to conceive (Maatje et al., 1997), which allows
the farmer to adopt an optimal insemination routine related to
estrus detection time in accordance with the sensor’s indication
and the service availability. However, even when inseminated at
the optimum time, not all cows get pregnant. The primary reason
for this is that the cow’s metabolic status when she starts the cycle
after calving is a negative energy balance, which prevents concep-
tion (Butler and Smith, 1989). Assessing exactly when the cow
emerges from a negative energy balance is difficult. Farmers fore-
stall a poor conception rate by delaying insemination time, some-
times as much as 100 d after calving, despite the fact that they
would like the cows to get pregnant earlier. Sensors are available
that enable quite accurate pinpointing of every cow’s emergence
from a negative post calving energy balance. A study in Israel
was performed using MY and BW changes at estrus to indicate
emergence from negative energy balance, to improve insemin-
ation time and obtain earlier pregnancies (Maltz, 2010;
Mahmoud et al., 2017). The criteria that were selected were:
• MY decreasing or increasing by 0.5 kg/d or less, an indication of
being just past or reaching peak production
• BW increasing by 0.1% or more over its postcalving weight, cal-
culated for 3 d running average for 7 d prior to estrus detection
This is illustrated in Fig. 1. In the dairy that this study was per-
formed the routine was to inseminate only after estrus detection
which occurred 85 and 65 d after calving for heifers and cows
respectively, and the conception rate was 35% (out of 84
 150
Fig. 1. Successful conception following insemination
decision for one cow showed estrus 46 d after calving.
Daily averages of MY were calculated for 3 d running,
as was daily body weight as a percentage of post-
calving initial body weight (IBW). In the last 7 d prior
to estrus detection, the MY of this cow increased by
only 0.2631 and BW increased by 0.126% of IBW.
From (Maltz, 2010).
inseminations) and 20% (out of 137 inseminations) for heifers
and cows respectively. By contrast, when BW and MY data were
used to assess the point at which the cows emerged from post-
calving negative energy balance, 42% of the heifers that showed
estrus between 57–85 d after calving and 37% of the cows that
showed estrus between 47–65 d after calving (out of 55 and 54
inseminations for heifers and cows respectively) conceived.
Conception probability index
In farms that possess estrus detection, MY and BW sensors, it is
not too difficult to incorporate a ‘conception probability index’
into the existing herd management software. Together with the
estrus detection system, based on MY and BW, the index would
indicate the probability of the cow’s ability to conceive following
detection of this particular estrus. Intensive study regarding the
correlation between the conception rate and the BW nadir after
calving, the MY and BW curves, and behavior following the
BW nadir, may contribute to improvement in in the first insem-
ination conception rate (Kaim et al., 2010; Maltz, 2010). In add-
ition, post calving health problems like retained placenta or
metritis, that have a strong effect on conception rate can be incor-
porated into the index. This approach can improve the conception
rate of any reproduction strategy including hormonal synchron-
ization. Only the cows that have a proper ‘conception probability
index’ would be synchronized. It will be beneficial to the industry
if manufacturers that market these sensors and herd management
programs will join with scientist and extension service to produce
this index.
Pregnancy and calving
We do not have direct measurements to indicate embryo absorp-
tion (other than the cow returns to cyclicity), natural abortion or
still birth, but there are several sensors that indicate approaching
calving. Close observation of cattle in the late gestation period is
essential to detect the onset of calving and, thereby, reduce neo-
natal losses (Jensen, 2012). The process of calving entails two
stages and each has practical and managerial significance. The
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
Ephraim Maltz
first is when the cow starts to change its behavior; and the second,
when the physiological process of calving actually starts and the
cow is in labor. Naturally, the second stage is more attractive
for researchers to develop sensors to alert the farmer that the
cow is in labor (Mahmoud et al., 2017), so little attention has
been given to the first stage. It was only recently that it became
clear that a cow changes her behavior well ahead of actual calving;
these changes are gradual but can accurately indicate that the cow
is about to calve (Maltz et al., 2011; Jensen, 2012). Lying time and
frequency of lying bouts, number of steps and neck movements
are relevant sensor data, but the fact that the feeding behavior
changes too, resulting in reduced rumination time (Bar, 2010;
Fadula et al., 2017), reinforces the predictive capability for
approaching calving. In a study conducted at the Volcani
Center, it was found that when using computer-controlled self-
feeders (CCSF) for allocating concentrates in the period of prep-
aration, i.e. about a month before calving, the change in cow
behavior can also indicate impending calving. The dry cow
receives a low density ration and is very eager to consume concen-
trates that are provided by the CCSF, therefore, they visit the
feeder during every feeding window. If they miss a visit, it is usu-
ally when calving is about to start. An alert sent to the farmer
when a cow misses a feeding window could potentially be a
good indicator of approaching calving.
Nutrition
In the 1990s, an attempt was made by a commercial manufacturer
(Lely, The Netherlands) to develop an individual feeding technol-
ogy for forage. Nonetheless, up until now, individual feeding
includes a basic mixture (that may or may not contain concen-
trates) and supplemental concentrates using CCSF. Here, individ-
ual feeding will be described and discussed primarily from the
point of view of individual concentrates supplementation (ICS)
by CCSF, since this technology is commercially implemented in
both conventional and robot milking dairy farms, and its charac-
teristics indicate that it will become the dominant individual feed-
ing technology in the dairy industry. The largest expense in a
dairy farm is food and the most expensive ingredient in the
 Journal of Dairy Research
food is grain, the price of which keeps increasing. Accordingly,
the first individual feeding technology was developed to feed con-
centrates individually according to the farmers decision. The tech-
nology (produced by De Laval, Sweden) included a neck
transmitter that was manually charged in the milking parlor, to
set the concentrates ration for each cow. When a cow presented
herself to a concentrates self-feeder, the transmitter operated an
electrical motor, and concentrates were released to the cow
based on the pre-set charge. The technology was designed to cor-
relate the amount of the expensive ingredient, the concentrates,
fed to the cow according to her production. When individual
ID was developed and computer use was adopted by the industry,
this approach was accelerated, and most of the process was con-
trolled by a computer, with the exception of several components,
enumerated below. The technology enabled the farmer to control
the individual concentrates rationing from his office. This tech-
nology was very promising. Studies were conducted in the early
1980s to find the best way to adapt this strategy of correlating con-
centrates supplementation to performance and the economic
goals of the particular dairy farm (Cassel et al., 1982; Maltz
et al., 1991, 1992a, 1992b). Despite this, almost 40 years later,
the most popular feeding strategy applied in medium and large
dairy farms ignores this technology, and uses group feeding of a
total mixed ration (TMR), and mostly a flat rate TMR feeding,
throughout the lactation cycle. To some extent, this strategy
adopted aspects of individual feeding management in dairy
farms and research settings, where the cows could be grouped
according to time post calving (Maltz et al., 1992a; Grinspan
et al., 1994) and/or production potential, or body weight changes
(Spahr et al., 1993; Gaillard et al., 2016), and cows could be trans-
ferred between feeding groups according to changes in perform-
ance (Spahr et al., 1993; Gaillard et al., 2016) or time after
calving (Kroll et al., 1987). Then, each group could be fed a
TMR that was adjusted to the group’s average production
characteristics.
To evaluate the reasons why ICS did not achieve significant
market penetration, or at least become a significant applicable
strategy in the dairy industry, we should assess the advantages
and disadvantages of the TMR group feeding, including its indi-
vidual feeding aspects, in comparison to an individual feeding
strategy via CCSF. The biggest advantage of the group feeding
is the convenience and reliability of the on-site ration preparation;
the hardware consists of a weighing mixer wagon and portable
computers; the software entails a ration preparation program.
Even easier, the ration can be received from a food center that
can serve one or several dairy farms based on the average group
variables: the number of cows, performance, characteristics of
the feeding group, etc. Once this is done, the feeding is a worry
free process. In addition, numerous research papers based on
this strategy studied various components that could be incorpo-
rated into the ration, in order to improve performance or make
it more efficient (Miron et al., 2003, 2004, and see references in
Van Empel et al., 2016). The principal disadvantage is that all
ration preparation calculations for a group of cows or for the
entire herd are made for the ‘average cow’. The performance para-
meters used for the calculation are: average food consumption,
average milk production, average milk composition, average
BW, average body condition. One can argue that there is no
such thing as an ‘average cow’ because of individual variations
in production efficiency (Ben Meir et al., 2018, 2019). In terms
of ration density, under this feeding regime, around half of the
cows are overfed and half of them are underfed. Nonetheless, it
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
151
can be said that a TMR feeding strategy covering all nutritional
demand is convenient, reliable and gives the farmer peace of
mind. Even small dairy farms that do not have the convenience
of an on-site food center that were considered to be excellent can-
didates for introducing ICS by CCSF do not use this technology
because of all the problems entailed in operating them. The fact
that even when applying ICS by CCSF a basic mixture is still
fed to the cows via a common feeding trough, with operations
similar to TMR feeding also does not encourage the use of
CCSF. However, several new factors emerged that led to a
re-examination of individual feeding. Firstly, the price of concen-
trates keep rising, making efficient use more desirable. Secondly,
robotic milking typically requires a feeding inducement to entice
the cow to visit the robot, and that is usually concentrate. Thirdly,
the value of individual nutrition is now recognized to include
decreased environmental impact as well as increased production
efficiency. Individual feeding is built on the fundamentals of
IDCM described above: sensors, computer, physiological model,
decision-making based on the model and decisions execution
by the CCSF. Unfortunately, problems and obstacles exist in
each of these components, and despite substantial efforts, individ-
ual feeding did not take its expected role in the dairy industry.
Individual feeding has two goals. The first is to provide the
dairy cow the precise ration that she requires according to her
physiological condition and performance. The second derives
from the first, which is to prevent the waste of concentrates on
cows that do not qualify for a ration of the same energy density
or protein concentration that is required by high-yielding cows
or by the ‘average cow’. It was clearly demonstrated that when
individual feeding is established and feeding is done according
to energy balance, these two goals are achieved and production
efficiency increases substantially (Maltz et al., 2013).
Sensors
Individual feeding is sensor dependent. As noted above, the first
attempts to use sensors were in correlating supplementation con-
centrates to milk production, since this was the only performance
measurement available from a sensor (Cassel et al., 1982; Maltz
et al., 1991). Quite soon, it was recognized that more performance
variables are required to build a satisfactory physiological model
on which decisions concerning supplementation entailing the
energy provided by rations and the density of concentrates and
protein could be established. When individual on-line BW meas-
urement became possible it was incorporated into the system,
bringing some improvement (Maltz et al., 1992a, 1992b; Bossen
and Weisbjerg, 2009; Bossen et al., 2009; Gaillard et al., 2016).
The breakthrough came with the individual milk composition
analyzer (Afilab, Israel), that enabled milk fat and protein com-
position to be incorporated into the physiological model for
accurate rationing of concentrates, especially during periods of
transition (Maltz et al., 2004, 2009). When individual food intake
was measured manually, decisions could be made regarding the
ration density based on a substantial energy balance maintaining
protein on a constant level. The results were outstanding.
Physiological status improved and production increased with no
increase in concentrates rationing compared to a flat rate TMR
feeding group (Maltz et al., 2013). We can conclude that the sen-
sors necessary for optimal concentrates rationing are: MY, milk
composition, BW, body condition (Bercovich et al., 2013) and
food intake. Then, the model formulated by Maltz et al. (2013)
can be used for rationing concentrates using the body condition
 152
sensor (De Laval, Sweden) to provide additional information,
especially during the late lactation period (Bercovich et al.,
2013). In addition, the rumination sensor (SCR, Israel) and
rumen pH sensor (SmaXtec®, Austria) can provide supporting
information to establish sound physiological models (Duffield
et al., 2004; Phillips et al., 2009; Mottram et al., 2008). All the sen-
sors except that for measuring food intake are commercially avail-
able. Food intake is crucial to calculating individual energy
balance, and we will consider this next.
Individual food intake
Attempts are being made to develop a sensor to measure individ-
ual daily food intake (Bloch et al., 2019), but so far it is limited to
costly research facilities all over the world. For example, such
research is being conducted in the Volcani Center in Israel
(Halachmi et al., 1998) and in research dairy farms in universities,
like the University of Guelph in Canada and University of Florida.
In such facilities, individual food intake can be measured for cows
kept in a group in conditions that are close to commercial (i.e. not
restricted to tied stalls). Though not practical for commercial
dairy farms, the results of research in such facilities together
with available sensors that measure individual performance, can
provide all that is needed to design physiological models to evalu-
ate individual daily food intake based on performance and other
individual information, like time after calving and reproduction
status. The first attempt to model individual daily DMI with
only performance variables was published in 1997 (Halachmi
et al., 1997) using individual daily BW and MY. The model was
improved following a model published by the NRC in 2001
(NRC, 2001), which added a measurement of milk fat
(Halachmi et al., 1997). The availability of cow location sensors
(CowView® GEA, Germany) led to an attempt to incorporate
time spent in the feeding trough into the daily DMI model.
Improvement to the model was achieved, but to a lesser extent
than expected (Halachmi et al., 2016). Quite possibly, further
improvements in modeling individual daily DMI using perform-
ance and behavioral variables can be achieved, if the data goes
through a smoothing process first. It is common knowledge
that MY and BW fluctuate daily. Now it is also recognized that
food intake fluctuates as well (Figs. 2a and b).
The daily fluctuations in different performance variables do
not necessarily correlate well, as can be seen in Fig. 2a, however,
better correlations emerge when the data are smoothed by the
average of five running days (Fig. 2b). The number of days
required for a usable running average will be different during
the transition period when daily performance variables change
more markedly (Maltz et al., 1992a) than from peak production
onward, when changes are more moderate (Fig. 1). A further
improvement of the DMI model may come from replacing milk
fat by daily milk energy, calculated from MY and milk compos-
ition. As shown in Fig. 3, daily running averages over 5 d of
milk energy correlates significantly with the running daily average
of food intake over 5 d. Hence, milk energy measured on line,
which makes rationing concentrates according to energy balance
possible (Maltz et al., 2013), can also improve modeling individ-
ual food intake. However, even the best modeling results cannot
predict food intake of the marginal cows on both sides of produc-
tion efficiency scale (Ben Meir et al., 2018, 2019). Therefore, a
feedback system has to be incorporated into the concentrates
rationing process, which would evaluate the actual results of the
rationing decisions compared to those expected. For example, a
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
Ephraim Maltz
decision to increase ration density by increasing daily concentrate
supplements, because of a measurement of negative energy bal-
ance, (see below) should be followed by close observation to
determine if the outcome is not an undesired increase in BW
or BC, while MY is not affected or vice versa.
ICS can be applied in many ways, and a variety of interpreta-
tions can be made regarding the variable or variables to which ICS
is related. In some studies it is applied according to MY, BW and
estimated food intake (Cassel et al., 1982; Maltz et al., 1991,
1992a, 1992b; Spahr et al., 1993; Bossen and Weisbjerg, 2009;
Bossen et al., 2009) or as a percentage of the basic measured mix-
ture consumed (Henriksen et al., 2018). Neither stage of lactation
nor reproduction status have been included in these ICS decision-
making processes. These are physiological conditions that signifi-
cantly affect energy balance especially in transition time and, in
the case of reproductive status, late lactation. Incorporating the
physiological status into the ICS decision making process as was
done in TMR precision feeding (Maltz et al., 2013) may improve
its performance. Any ICS strategy is affected by the management
conditions under which the dairy is operating. For example, the
ICS strategy might be different under grazing (especially range
grazing as in Australia and New Zealand) vs. intensive or semi
intensive conditions (see review by John et al., 2016 and
Halachmi et al., 2016). Interpretation of the data also differs
according to system. In either conventional or robot milking con-
ditions, ICS strategy needs to answer the question, ‘are all the
ration concentrates supplemented individually through CCSF?’
This, in turn, raises the question, ‘how much concentrate remains
in the basic mixture?’ The composition and quality of forages as
well as of concentrates is also a factor in ICS strategy. Availability
of byproducts that maintain the quality of concentrates, such as
cotton seeds, citrus pulp or vegetable waste (Maltz et al., 1991,
2013; Miron et al., 2004) are all parameters that have to be con-
sidered when applying an ICS strategy by CCSF. Typically this
is done without including environmental conditions that may
affect the cow’s use of CCSF, but it is important to recognize
that each of the conditions listed above may affect the outcome
of one ICS strategy or another. It is quite possible that every
dairy will have to fine tune the ICS strategy selected to its own
specific conditions. To summarize, all the variables that are
affected by ration energy and concentrates density have to be
incorporated into the physiological model that dictates concen-
trates supplementation. These include:
• Milk yield
• Body weight
• Milk composition (fat, protein, lactose)
• Magnitude of MY increase post calving, and MY and MY
changes after peak production.
• Magnitude of BW decrease post calving, and BW and BW
changes after peak production.
• BC and BC changes during the lactation cycle.
• Food intake
• Energy balance
For all of these variables (except food intake) sensors exist, or the
variable can be calculated from the variables measured, e.g. energy
balance. Individual food intake has to be evaluated out of the
measured variables as described above. The strategy that has the
greatest potential to become the dominant strategy after all the
practical problems are solved (see below), is the one that will
use measured energy balance (Maltz et al., 2013), using calculated
 Journal of Dairy Research
Fig. 2. Daily food intake, MY and BW of a cow kept in a group of 42 cows. Individual measurements were made in the barn at the Volcani Center (Halachmi et al.,
1998) during 14 successive days at mid lactation. (a) Describes the daily measured values and (b) describes the running averages of these same data over periods of
5 d (days 1–5, 2–6 and so on).
individual food intake until a proper sensor is developed.
Regardless of which ICS strategy is employed under any manage-
ment systems, some basic practical conditions must be fulfilled.
These are mainly related to the CCSF.
Computer controlled self-feeders
The device on which the whole of ICS is based is the CCSF.
Therefore, second only to the ICS strategy adopted, the proper
operation and cow use of the CCSF is crucial in exploiting the
benefits of individual feeding. Several conditions must be met
for successful operation of the CCSF, as follows.
Firstly, every cow in the group must have enough feeding-stall
time to consume the amount of concentrates rationed to her.
Therefore, the ICS strategy has to correlate with the maximum
amount of time that a cow is expected to spend in the CCSF.
The maximum rate that can be consumed by a cow at the rate
it is allowed by the machine, without leaving left overs behind
when the cow, for any reason, leaves the stall, is around 300 g/
min (Kroll et al., 1988) of pelleted grain. Crushed grain is not
recommended because of its powdery consistency. A cow that
qualifies for 10 kg/d needs 33.3 min in the stall, plus about 30 s
to enter and back out every time she feeds. If the maximum allow-
ance of one feed is, say, 3 kg, then this cow will need approxi-
mately 35 min in the stall diurnally. In calculating the number
of CCSFs needed to feed a group of cows comfortably, one has
to take into consideration the fact that during the night, the
CCSF are visited less frequently than they are during the day.
Under robot milking conditions with no external (out of the milk-
ing stall) CCSF, the concentrates consumption time has to correl-
ate with milking time, which itself must correlate with MY and
milking frequency. In any case, if ICS is expected to work, the
ratio of concentrates allowance in a group of cows has to correlate
to the number of CCSF available. These calculations are particu-
larly significant, because cows that do not qualify for high energy
density rations thrive on the leftovers from cows that are butted
out of the feeding stall or forced out of the robot milking stall
before consuming their allowance. This is a bit more complicated
when dual-channel CCSF that can ration two components of con-
centrates are employed to individually feed energy and protein to
the cows (Maltz et al., 2004, 2009). The rate of feeding the cow
with the two components together should not exceed 300 g/min.
Next, all cows in the group need to be rationed a significant
amount of concentrates. Cow behavior has to be considered in
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
153
any ICS strategy, especially in conventional dairy farms. The
physiological model of ICS strategy when applied to a group of
cows should be designed in such a way that it allows all cows to
use the CCSF and consume a substantial quantity of concentrates.
Cows that are not given supplements (especially those that are
familiar with self-feeders) tend to roam around the self-feeders,
disturbing other cows and preventing them from entering the
feeding stalls, as well as butting cows that are using them.
Furthermore, the ICS needs to be allocated so that it is con-
sumed evenly throughout the day, and the number of ‘feeding
windows’ as well as the amount fed in each of them should be
planned accordingly. Rationing must be planned so that every
cow receives at least 1 kg of concentrates at every feeding window.
In addition, attention must be paid to calibration. Most CCSF
systemsdisperse the concentrates by volume, hence, calibration is
required to translate the volume to weight. This has to be done
frequently, especially when the storage containers are refilled or
the type of concentrates is changed. Unfortunately, CCSF calibra-
tion is complicated, difficult and time consuming, but it must be
done in order to make individual feeding work. In time, it is
hoped that solutions will be developed so that CCSF will disperse
the feed and concentrates by weight or a more friendly calibration
routine will be provided.
Another factor is that food that is palatable and attractive to
the cows must always be available in the common feeding trough,
since an empty trough or unpalatable food will always cause
unnecessary pressure on the self-feeders, disturbing the feeding
behavior routine.
In terms of layout, in a no-stall compost bedded barn, the self-
feeders surrounding should be concrete and not far from the
common feeding trough.
Finally, placement of the CCSF should take into consideration
environmental conditions, to avoid direct sunlight and heat in the
summer. Fulfilling all of these conditions will ensure that the fun-
damentals for successful ICS implementation have been met, and
each cow consumes her ICS ration.
Individual electrolytes feeding
Several studies have indicated that providing sodium, potassium
and chloride as a fixed proportion of the ration may not be
adequate at transition times. This happens especially with sodium
and potassium (Shalit et al., 1991; Silanikove et al., 1996; Silanikove
et al., 1998). This might happen because of incompatibility between
 154
Fig. 3. Correlation between daily milk energy and food intake (as is) of a TMR, accord-
ing to NRC (2001) based on a running average of 5 d. Individual measurements done
on 42 cows mid lactation, over a period of 14 d in the individual measurements barn
at the Volcani Center (Halachmi et al., 1998). Each point represents 1 d of one cow.
the relative increases in MY and food intake: MY running ahead of
intake might drain electrolytes from the cow, which is not compen-
sated by the more gradual increase in food intake containing a fixed
proportion of these electrolytes. A study in which the cows received
these electrolytes in proportion to the increased food intake was
found to be superior to providing the electrolytes as a fixed propor-
tion of the cows’ food (Silanikove et al., 1998). CCSF are capable of
providing several different components, and further technological
refinements to provide minute components like electrolytes, miner-
als and vitamins may advance individual feeding.
Welfare
The fact that ‘an animal manifests by its behaviour her wellbeing
and physiological status’ (Hurnik, 1992) requires the farmers eye
and interpretation ability to maximize wellbeing. Today, this is
supported by a battery of sensors that can virtually surround
the herd and individuals within it. We are able to monitor activity
in the barn, characterize temperament and restlessness as well as
behavioral and physiological responses to milking and milkers.
Unfortunately, most of this information is not yet properly uti-
lized to improve dairy cow wellbeing.
For our discussion, aspects of the cow’s wellbeing can be
divided into two categories: those related to the animal’s environ-
ment, i.e. the barn and its facilities, and those related to the milk-
ing process, including both conventional or robotic milking. In
the conventional milking process, the cow’s wellbeing depends
very much on her interaction with humans, and it is this inter-
action that provides the prime example of unused but potentially
useful data. The major amount of data that can be obtained at
milking includes milking cohort variables as well as individual
cow data. For milking cohort data:
• The arrangement time in the milking parlor – first and last ID
time in the milking cohort
• Time between successive milking cohorts – last cluster detach-
ment time, first attachment time
• Time group spends in the parlor – first ID time, group release
time
For individual data
• Waiting time in the milking line before milking – time between
ID and attachment.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
Ephraim Maltz
• Milking time – time between attachment and detachment
• Milk let down readiness (oxytocin release) – time between clus-
ter attachment and continuous milk flow
• Amount milked at any time interval
• Milk flow rate at any time interval during milking
These factors relate to physiological variables that are of great sig-
nificance to the cow’s wellbeing. As a simple example, milking
time and milk flow will vary depending on whether the cows
are milked by a familiar milker or by someone they do not
know (Table 1). It is to be hoped that more use will be made of
such data in the future.
There is considerable debate regarding the wellbeing conse-
quences of the cow’s interactions with her environment. Many
take the view that allowing maximum freedom of movement
(‘free range’) and choice is paramount but, on the other hand,
an optimal housed environment removes the vagaries and stresses
of harsh environmental conditions. It is quite possible to argue
that the well-known Five Freedoms of good welfare (Webster,
2001) can best be achieved in a fully roofed, dry manure, bedded,
no-stall barn, with milking done by robots. These conditions pro-
vide two crucial elements that contribute to dairy cows’ life qual-
ity. First, there are no stalls to hamper lying behavior and second,
there is relatively little human interaction. Space does not allow
for a full discussion of the many ways in which individual cow
management might contribute to improved wellbeing in the
future, so instead a specific example of what is possible will
now be given.
Free stalls
Under fully roofed, no-stall conditions, dairy cows enjoy signifi-
cant longer lying times than do cows in a free-stall barn under
the same environmental and climatic conditions (Livshin et al.,
2005). This occurs when the free stalls are properly maintained.
Nevertheless, most of the dairy barns in the U.S. and Europe
are designed as free stall system. The advantages of this system
are:
• Lying space is provided for every cow in the barn with a min-
imal roof area, enabling better control of environmental
conditions
• Every cow in the group can rest in such a way that the stalls
remain relatively free of feces and urine, which can easily be col-
lected and removed from the barn
Unfortunately, stalls are often designed for moderately sized and
small cows, to minimize the labor necessary for stall cleaning, and
to economize on stall bedding material. This, by definition, means
that the stall will be uncomfortable for larger cows. The conflict-
ing needs of having sufficient lying space for all cows to be com-
fortable, on the one hand, and prevent the accumulation of
excreta in the stalls, on the other, can be achieved by installing
adjustable stalls, the length of which automatically adjusts when
a larger-framed cow approaches it. The stall then automatically
returns to its original size when the cow leaves it. The length
will be adjusted by means of a movable bar or fence at the end
of the stall with a hydraulic, pneumatic or similar mechanism
to adjust it. The opposite stall will be insignificantly shorter,
and still suitable for medium sized and short cows. About 20%
more adjustable stalls are required than the number of cows in
 Journal of Dairy Research
Table 1. Milking parameters of two successive morning milkings
Milk yield (kg/cow/ Milking time
Milkers milking) (min)
Experienced 11.92 4.42
Inexperienced 11.36 4.87
The first day, morning milking was performed by the dairy’s regular experienced staff, and the second by substitute milkers.
All differences between experienced and inexperienced workers are significant: P < 0.001.
the group that require stalls longer than the standard size. The
required facilities are:
• An ID system connected to a camera on the milking parlor out-
let path, with suitable software to ‘measure’ the cow size
• An ID system connected to the adjustable stalls so that every
cow that presents herself is identified, and the system decides
whether the stall’s length should be changed
• Software in the herd management system that combines all
three elements: length measurement connected to ID, length
adjustable free stalls connected to the ID system and decision-
making software
Conclusions
Achievements and obstacles
The principal achievements of IDCM include additional individ-
ual sensors and intensified research in the field. The principal dis-
appointment is the painfully slow dissemination of IDCM.
Among the achievements are:
• Automatic estrus detection.
• Availability of a variety of sensors that allow the generation of
more data and details about function and behavior of each indi-
vidual cow, which is particularly applicable when there is con-
cern about a specific cow.
The reasons for the low dissemination of IDCM were summarized
by Bewley and Russell (2010) and van Empel et al. (2016) and are
outlined here with practical examples:
• Technologies promoted as user-friendly are actually not easy to
use and costly. In this respect we can include regular mainten-
ance and calibration needs, as described for CCSF and walk
through scales
• Technologies and concepts that are not fully developed and go
to market too quickly. The term ‘too quickly’ might be mislead-
ing. The sensor performs satisfactorily, but there are no instruc-
tions regarding how to translate the data into useable
information, what to do with this information, or how to
incorporate it with the data obtained from other sensors.
Moreover, it is marketed without guidance on the variety of
management aspects that can be improved.
• Technologies are developed without considering integration
with other technologies or the farmer’s routine work patterns.
This problem is one of the most disturbing. Perhaps manufac-
turers will reach a point where they work together to integrate
technologies that each produce, although currently this seems a
long way off.
• Scarcity of large-scale field trials and demonstrations for com-
mercial purposes. This is a crucial step toward dissemination.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
155
Average milk flow Milk yield first Low flow milking time (% of total
(kg/min) 2 min (kg) milking time)
2.29 5.03 20.4
2.07 4.59 27.2
However, such field trials are costly, and the outcome is not
guaranteed. Therefore, such trials should be a joint effort of
the manufacturer and research institutes. Scientists should
study the implementation of new technologies, and extension
services should teach farmers about the advantages and disad-
vantages of IDCM technologies and how to use them.
• Technology is marketed without adequate interpretation of the
biological significance of the data. This, too, is currently the task
of researchers.
• Information is provided with no clear plan of action. Of all the
problems listed, this one is probably the most significant. A
dairy farmer’s most valuable resource is time. A farmer may get
and use aggregated or averaged data on groups of cows, but is usu-
ally unable to analyze data on each individual cow, even if he only
has 50 cows, and certainly can’t if his herd is larger than that.
If IDCM is to become a widespread practice, it must have clear
instructions for use and application or, even better, it should be
capable of automatic decision-making and execution. Until we
reach this stage, the solution may be outsourcing. Farms could
be connected via the internet to a center, where extension experts
can analyze the data, run them through physiological models,
make decisions and even execute them for ICS, or send short
and conclusive reports regarding each cow’s health, reproduction
and welfare. The manufacturers would have to give this center
access to their sensors, so that sensors from different manufac-
turers can be used on the same farm.
Future research and applications
There are numerous possibilities for IDCM research, be it sensors,
biomarkers and application of existing and newly developed tech-
nologies and management routines. This review indicated several
future research directions for R&D in IDCM which are a short
distance from practical and beneficial application:
• Health: integrating several sensors to indicate a health problem,
and developing teat accustomed milking cups in milking robots
• Reproduction: conception index based on emergence point
from negative energy balance
• Nutrition: individual concentrates supplementation (ICS) using
measured energy balance with model calculated food intake that
uses actual feeding time and milk energy, and accurate supple-
mentation of Na, K and Cl during transition time
• Wellbeing: development of cow-size adjustable free stalls and
usage of milking parlor variables to improve milker/cow
interactions
References
Arazi A, Pinski N, Schcolnik T, Aizinbud E, Katz G and Maltz E (2008)
Innovations arising from applied research of a new on-line milk analyzer
 156
and a behavior meter. New Trends for Innovation in The Mediterranean
Animal Production. International Mediterranean Symposium of EAAP,
INRA, 6–8 November Corte, Corsica, France. pp. 34–43.
Bar D (2010) Optimal timing of insemination using activity collars. The First
North American Conference on Precision Dairy Management, 2–5 March,
Toronto, Canada. pp. 100–101.
Bar D and Solomon R (2010) Rumination time: what can they tell us. The
First North American Conference on Precision Dairy Management, 2–5
March, Toronto, Canada. pp. 214–215.
Ben Meir Y, Nikbachat M, Fortnik Y, Jacoby S, Levit H, Adin G, Cohen
Zinder M, Shabtay A, Gershon E, Zachut M, Mabjeesh SJ and
Halachmi I (2018) Eating behavior, milk production, rumination, and
digestibility characteristics of high- and low-efficiency lactating cows fed a
low-roughage diet. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 10973–10984.
Ben Meir Y, Nikbachat M, Jacoby S, Portnik Y, Levit H, Kleinjan Elazary A,
Gershon E, Adin G, Cohen Zinder M, Shabtay A, Zachut M, Mabjeesh
SJ, Halachmi I and Miron J (2019) Effect of lactation trimester and parity
on eating behavior, milk production and efficiency traits of dairy cows.
Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 13, 1–8.
Bercovich A, Edan Y, Alchanatis V, Moallem U, Parmet Y, Honig H, Maltz
E, Antler A and Halachmi I (2013) Development of an automatic system
for cow body condition scoring using body shape signature. Journal of
Dairy Science 96, 8047–8059.
Bewley JM and Russell RM (2010) Reasons for slow adoption rates of preci-
sion dairy farming technology: evidence from a producer survey.
Proceedings of the First North American Conference on Precision Dairy
Management, Toronto, Canada, 2–5 March. pp. 30–31.
Bloch V, Levit H and Halachmi I (2019) Assessing the potential of photo-
grammetry to monitor feed intake of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy
Research 18, 1–6.
Bossen D and Weisbjerg MR (2009) Allocation of feed based on individual
dairy cow live weight changes II: effect on milk production. Livestock
Science 126, 273–285.
Bossen D, Weisbjerg MR, Munksgaard L and Højsgaard S (2009) Allocation
of feed based on individual dairy cow live weight changes I: feed intake and
live weight changes during lactation. Livestock Science 126, 252–272.
Butler WR and Smith RD (1989) Interrelationships between energy balance
and postpartum reproductive function in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy
Science 72, 767–783.
Cassel EK, Merrill WG, Bul TV, Milligan RA and Guest RW (1982)
Evaluation of systems for feeding supplemental concentrates to group fed
cows. Animal Science Mimeograph Series. Teaching, Extension, and
Research. Dept. of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Davis MA, Reinemann DJ and Maltz E (2002) The significance of teat
morphology and physiology differences in milking research: new considera-
tions offered by robot milking possibilities. The First North American
Conference on Robotic Milking, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 20–22 March.
pp. 97–99.
De Vries A, Gay KD, Barbosa LF, Du F, Kaniyamattam K and Maltz E
(2013) Prediction of body condition scores in dairy cattle from daily mea-
surements of body weights and milk composition. 6th European Conference
on Precision Livestock Farming, Leuven, Belgium, 10–12 September 2013. pp.
576–580.
Duffield T, Plaizier JC, Fairfield A, Bagg R, Vessie G, Dick P, Wilson J,
Aramini J and McBride B (2004) Comparison of techniques for measure-
ment of rumen pH in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 59–66.
Fadula M, Bogdahna C, Alsaaoda M, Huslerb J, Starkec A, Steinera A and
Hirsbrunner G (2017) Prediction of calving time in dairy cattle. Animal
Reproduction Science 187, 37–46.
Foote RH (1975) Estrus detection and estrus detection aids. Journal of Dairy
Science 58, 248–256.
Fordham DP, Rowlinson P and McCarthy TT (1988) Oestrus detection in
dairy cows by milk temperature measurement. Research in Veterinary
Science 44, 366–374.
Gaillard C, Friggens NC, Taghipoor M, Weisbjerg MR, Lehmann JO and
Sehested J (2016) Effects of an individual weight-adjusted feeding strategy
in early lactation on milk production of Holstein cows during extended lac-
tation. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 2221–2236.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
Ephraim Maltz
Grinspan P, Kahn HE, Maltz E and Edan Y (1994) A fuzzy logic expert sys-
tem for dairy cow transfer between feeding groups. Transactions of the
ASAE 37, 1647–1654.
Halachmi I, Maltz E, Metz JHM and Devir S (1997) The body weight of the
dairy cow: II. Modeling individual voluntary food intake based on body
weight and milk production. Livestock Production Science 48, 244–246.
Halachmi I, Edan Y, Maltz E, Peiper UM, Moallem U and Brukental I
(1998) A real-time control system for individual dairy cows food intake.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 20, 131–144.
Halachmi I, Edan Y, Moallem U and Maltz E (2004) Predicting feed intake of
the individual dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2254–2267.
Halachmi I, Ben Meir Y, Miron J and Maltz E (2016) Feeding behavior
improved the prediction of dairy cow voluntary feed intake but cannot
served as the solely indicator. Animal: An International Journal of
Animal Bioscience 10, 1501–1506.
Henriksen JCS, Weisbjerg MR, Løvendahl P, Kristensen T and Munksgaard
L (2018) Effects of an individual cow concentrate strategy on production
and behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 1–18.
Hurnik JF (1992) Ethology and technology: the role of ethology in automation
of animal production processes. In Ipema AH, Lipus AC, Metz JHM and
Rossing W (eds), Prospects for Automatic Milking. Wageningen, the
Netherlands: PUDOC Scientific Publishers, EAAP Publ. No. 65, pp. 401–408.
Jensen MB (2012) Behaviour around the time of calving in dairy cows. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 139, 195–202.
John AJ, Clark CE, Freeman MJ, Kerrisk KL, Garcia SC and Halachmi I
(2016) Review: milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock
farming evolution. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience
10, 1484–1492.
Kaim M, Nativ A, Zuckerman A, Antler A and Maltz E (2010) Early insem-
ination of dairy cows based on energetic status assessed by online body-
weight and milk-yield data. 14th International Conference on Production
Diseases in Farm Animals (ICPD), Gent, Belgium, 20–24 June. p. 14.
Kroll O, Owen JB and Whitaker CT (1987) Grouping and complete diet
composition in relation to parity and potential yield in dairy cows.
Journal of Agricultural Science 108, 281–291.
Kroll O, Maltz E and Spahr SL (1988) Herd and feed management in milk
production. Proceedings of the 2nd International DLG Congress (Frankfurt
FRG). pp. 492–511.
Lehrer AR, Lewis GS and Aizinbud E (1992) Oestrus detection in cattle:
recent development. Animal Reproduction Science 28, 355–361.
Liu J, Neerchal NK, Tasch U, Dyer RM and Ructajkondawar PG (2009)
Enhancing the prediction accuracy of bovine lameness models through transfor-
mations of limb movement variables. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 2539–2550.
Livshin N, Antler A, Zion B, Stojanovski G, Bunevski G and Maltz E (2005)
Lying behaviour of dairy cows under different housing systems and physio-
logical conditions. In Cox S (ed.), Precision Livestock Farming ’05.
Proceedings of the 2nd ECPLF, 9–12 June. Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 305–311.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Maatje K, Loeffler SH and Engel B (1997) Predicting optimal time of insem-
ination in cows that show visual signs of estrus by estimating onset of estrus
with pedometers. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1098–1105.
Mahmoud F, Bogdahn C, Alsaaod M, Hüsler J, Starke A, Steiner A and
Hirsbrunner G (2017) Prediction of calving time in dairy cattle. Animal
Reproduction Science 187, 37–46.
Maltz E (1997) The body weight of the dairy cow: III. Use for on-line manage-
ment purposes of individual cows. Livestock Production Science 48, 187–200.
Maltz E (2010) Novel Technologies: sensors, data and precision dairy farming.
Proceedings of the First North American Conference on Precision Dairy
Management, The Second North American Conference on Robot Milking,
Toronto, Canada, March 2–5. pp. 164–178.
Maltz E, Kroll O, Sagi R, Devir S, Spahr SL and Genizi A (1991) Milk yield,
parity and cow potential as variables for computerized concentrates supple-
mentation strategy. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2277–2289.
Maltz E, Devir S, Kroll O, Zur B, Spahr SL and Shanks RD (1992a)
Comparative responses of lactating cows to total mixed ration or computer-
ized individual concentrates feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1588–1603.
Maltz E, Grinspan P, Edan Y, Antler A, Kroll O and Spahr SL (1992b)
Expert system for cow transfer between feeding groups: potential
 Journal of Dairy Research
application for automatic self feeding and milking. In Ipema AH, Lipus AC,
Metz JHM and Rossing W (eds), Prospects for Automatic Milking.
Wageningen, the Netherlands: PUDOC Scientific Publishers, EAAP Publ.
No. 65, pp. 322–330.
Maltz E, Devir S, Metz JHM and Hogeveen H (1997) The body weight of the
dairy cow: I. Introductory study into body weight changes in dairy cows as a
management aid. Livestock Production Science 48, 175–186.
Maltz E, Livshin N, Antler A, Brukental I and Arieli A (2004) Technologies
and modeling, for precision protein feeding of dairy cows during transition
time. CIGR International Conference, Olympics of Agricultural Engineering,
Beijing, P. R. China, 11–14 October. pp. III76–III77.
Maltz E, Antler A, Halachmi I and Schmilovitch Z (2009) Precision concen-
trate rationing to the dairy cow using on-line daily milk composition sensor,
milk yield and body weight. In Lokhorst C and Groot Koerkamp PWG
(eds), Precision Livestock Farming ’09. Proceedings of the 4th ECPLF,
Wageningen, The Netherlands, 6–11 June. pp. 17–23. Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Maltz E, Medini N, Bercovitch A, Parmet Y, Halachmi I, Antler A and Edan
Y (2011) Predicting calving time of dairy cows by behaviour sensor. In
Lokhorst C and Berckmans D (eds), Precision Livestock Farming ’11. The
5th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming. Prague, Czech
Republic, pp. 464–475. Czech Center for Science and Society, Prague
Czech Republic .
Maltz E, Barbosa LF, Bueno P, Scagion L, Kaniyamattam K, Greco LF, De
Vries A and Santos JE (2013) Effect of feeding according to energy balance
on performance, nutrient excretion and feeding behavior of early lactation
dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 5249–5264.
Mayo LM, Silvia WJ, Ray DL, Jones BW, Stone AE, Tsai IC, Clark JD,
Bewley JM and Heersche G Jr (2019) Automated estrous detection using
multiple commercial precision dairy monitoring technologies in synchro-
nized dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 1–12.
Meshram BD, Agrawal AK, Adil S, Ranvir S and Sande KK (2018) Biosensor
and its application in food and dairy industry: a review. International
Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science 7, 3305–3324.
Miron J, Yosef E, Maltz E and Halachmi I (2003) Soybean hulls for replace-
ment of forage neutral detergent fiber in total mixed ration of lactating
cows. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences and Technology 106, 21–28.
Miron J, Yosef E, Nikbachat M, Zenou A, Maltz E, Halachmi I and
Ben-Ghedalia D (2004) Feeding behavior and performance of dairy cows
fed pelleted non-roughage fiber by products. Journal of Dairy Science 87,
1372–1379.
Mottram T, Lowe J, McGowan M and Phillips N (2008) Technical note: a
wireless telemetric method of monitoring clinical acidosis in dairy cows.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 64, 45–48.
National Research Council (NRC) (2001) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy
Cattle. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Neethirajan S (2017) Recent advances in wearable sensors for animal health
management. Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research 12, 15–29.
Neethirajan S, Tuteja SK, Huang S-T and Kelton D (2017) Recent advance-
ment in biosensors technology for animal and livestock health manage-
ment. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 98, 398–407.
Østergaard S and Grohn YT (1999) Effects of diseases on test day milk yield
and body weight of dairy cows from Danish research herds. Journal of Dairy
Science 82, 1188–1201.
Peiper UM, Edan Y, Devir S, Barak M and Maltz E (1993) Automatic weigh-
ing of dairy cows. Journal of agricultural Engineering Research 56, 13–24.
Phillips N, Mottram T, Poppi D, Mayer D and McGowan MR (2009)
Continuous monitoring of ruminal pH using wireless telemetry. Animal
Production Science 50, 72–77.
Rajkondawar PG, Liu M, Dyer RM, Neerchal NK, Tasch U, Lefcourt AM,
Erez B and Varner MA (2006) Comparison of models to identify lame
cows based on gait and lesion scores, and limb movement variables.
Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4267–4275.
Reith S and Hoy S (2012) Relationship between daily rumination time and
estrus of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 6416–6420.
Schcolnik T and Maltz E (2013) In-line milk analysis: a tool for animal health
monitoring, key in dairy farm management decisions. Precision Dairy 2013,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 125.162.215.226, on 15 Feb 2022 at 01:26:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029920000382
157
A Conference on Precision Dairy Management. Mayo Civic Center,
Rochester, Minnesota, 26–27 June. pp. 53–54.
Shalit U, Maltz E, Silanikove N and Berman A (1991) Water, Na, K and Cl
metabolism of dairy cows at onset of lactation in hot weather. Journal of
dairy Science 74, 1874–1883.
Shoshani E and Berman A (1992) Composite milk electrical resistance as a
means for monitoring mastitis. In Ipema AH, Lipus AC, Metz JHM
and Rossing W (eds), Prospects for Automatic Milking. Wageningen,
the Netherlands: PUDOC Scientific Publishers, EAAP Publ. No. 65, pp.
126–133.
Sieber RL and Farnsworth RJ (1981) Prevalence of chronic teat-end lesions
and their relationship to intramammary infection in 22 herds of dairy cattle.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 178, 1263–1267.
Silanikove N, Maltz E, Halevi A and Shinder D (1996) Metabolism of water,
sodium, potassium, and chlorine by high yielding dairy cows at onset of lac-
tation. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 949–956.
Silanikove N, Maltz E, Shinder D, Bogin E, Bastholm T, Christensen NJ and
Norggarrd P (1998) Metabolic and productive response of dairy cows to
increased ion supplementation at early lactation in hot weather. Journal
of Dairy Research 65, 529–543.
Spahr SL, Shanks RD, McCoy GC, Maltz E and Kroll O (1993) Lactation
potential as a criterion for total mixed ration feedling strategy for dairy
cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2723–2735.
Steensels M, Bahr C, Berckmans D, Halachmi I, Antler A and Maltz E
(2012) Lying patterns of high producing healthy dairy cows after calving
in commercial herds as affected by age, environmental conditions and pro-
duction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136, 88–95.
Steensels M, Maltz E, Bahr C, Berckmans D, Antler A and Halachmi I
(2017a) Practical application of rumination duration, activity and milk
yield data; part 1: the effect of post-calving health problems. Journal of
Dairy Research 84, 132–138.
Steensels M, Maltz E, Bahr C, Berckmans D, Antler A and Halachmi I
(2017b) Towards practical application of rumination duration, activity
and milk yield data; design and validation of a model to detect ketosis.
Journal of Dairy Research 84, 139–145.
Van De Gucht T, Saeys W, Van Weyenberg S, Lauwers L, Mertens K,
Vandaele L, Vangeyte J and Van Nuffel A (2017) Automatic cow lameness
detection with a pressure mat: effects of mat length and sensor resolution.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 134, 172–180.
van Empel MJM, Makkar HPS, Dijkstra J and Lund P (2016) Nutritional,
technological and managerial parameters for precision feeding to enhance
feed nutrient utilization and productivity in different dairy cattle produc-
tion systems. CAB Reviews 11, 1–27.
Van Hertem T, Bahr C, Schlageter Tello A, Viazzi S, Steensels M, Romanini
CEB, Lokhorst C, Maltz E, Halachmi I and Berckmans D (2016)
Lameness detection in dairy cattle: single predictor v. multivariate analysis
of image-based posture processing and behaviour and performance sensing.
Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 10, 1525–1532.
Van Hertem T, Schlageter Tello A, Viazzi S, Viazzi S, Bahr C, Viazzi S,
Steensels M, Romanini CEB, Lokhorst C, Maltz E, Halachmi I and
Berckmans D (2018) Implementation of an automatic 3D vision monitor
for dairy cow locomotion in a commercial farm. Biosystems Engineering
173, 166–175.
Van Straten M, Shpigel N and Friger M (2009a) Association among
patterns in daily body weight, body condition scoring, and reproductive
performance in high-producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92,
4375–4385.
Van Straten M, Friger M and Shpigel N (2009b) Events of elevated somatic
cell counts in high-producing dairy cows are associated with daily body
weight loss in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 436–4394.
Wathes CM, Kristensen HH, Aerts J-M and Berkmans D (2005) Is precision
livestock farming an engineer’s dream or nightmare, an animal friend or foe,
and farmer’s panacea or pitfall? In Cox S (ed.), Precision Livestock Farming
’05. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 33–46.
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Webster AJF (2001) Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free mar-
ket. The Veterinary Journal 161, 229–237.